The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of their Texts and Language

OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

General Editors Gillian Clark

Andrew Louth

THE OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES series includes scholarly volumes on the thought and history of the early Christian centuries. Covering a wide range of Greek, Latin, and Oriental sources, the books are of interest to theologians, ancient historians, and specialists in the classical and Jewish worlds. Tides in the series include: Pelagius' Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to the Romans Translated with introduction and commentary T. S. de Bruyn (1993) The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community Graham Gould (1993) Arator on the Acts of the Apostles A Baptismal Commentary Richard Hillier (1993) Origen and the Life of the Stars A History of an Idea Alan Scott (1991) paperback (1994) Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism David Brakke (1995) Jerome's Hebrew Questions on Genesis Translated with an introduction and commentary by C. T. R. Hayward (1995) Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts Daniel H. Williams (1995) Arnobius of Sicca Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian Michael Bland Simmons (1995) Gregory of Nyssa's Treatise on the Inscriptions of the Psalms Ronald E. Heine (1995) Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ The Monasteries of Palestine 314—631 John Binns (1994) paperback (1996)

The Old Latin Gospels A Study of their Texts and language

PHILIP BURTON

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRES S

This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard specification in order to ensure its continuing availability

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Philip Burton 2000 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) Reprinted 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer ISBN 0-19-826988-9

Parentibvs Conivgiqve

PREFACE

This book is the first attempt to give a general account of the language and textual history of the Old Latin Gospels. My first encounter with the Old Latin Gospels was in an undergraduate class on vulgar Latin, ten years ago. Dissatisfaction with a received opinion piqued my interest, and led me to choose them as a topic for my doctoral dissertation. In preparing that dissertation, I found myself trespassing into various fields not on my original route; from textual transmission to early Christian studies, from Romance philology to translation theory. It is hoped this work will be of interest to specialists in these and related fields; and that where others are in turn dissatisfied with it, they will be sufficiently intrigued to go out and prove me wrong. As a novice author, I have many debts of gratitude to acknowledge, First among these is to the teachers who first introduced me to Latin and to New Testament studies: Stan Wolfson, John Arnold, and Tony Collier. Among my University teachers, my greatest debt is undoubtedly to Bob Coleman. It was disagreement with a remark of his that first led me to study the Old Latin Gospels for myself; that was not our last disagreement, but I hope I have learnt as much from his patient courtesy towards a brash and opinionated student as I have from his massive knowledge of Latin and linguistics. The faults in this book were such as neither he nor anyone else could talk me out of. The Faculty of Classics in Cambridge, and later the University of St Andrews, have both in their very different ways provided both support and stimulation; my thanks go to both. Jim Adams and Caroline Bammel, who examined my original dissertation, offered many useful suggestions. The world knows their scholarship too well for it to need any encomium here. Gillian Clark was generous in encouraging me to produce this book; Roger Wright was bracingly clear-headed as ever. Hilary O'Shea, Enid Barker, Georga Godwin, and Virginia Williams were kindly, efficient, and made sure this work sneaked in before the Research Assessment Exercise door slammed shut. My biggest debts I cannot well describe, let alone repay, to my parents, and to Cristina. P.H.B. Crail

CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

Part I: The Textual History of the Old Latin Gospels 1. Lines 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 .4 1. 5 1.6 1.7

of Enquiry Introduction Terminology: 'Old Latin' and 'Italta' Vulgate and Mixed Texts Editions Matzkow—Julicher—Aland Typical' Renderings Greek Variants

2. Catalogue of Manuscripts 2.1 Introduction 2.2 'African' and 'European' Traditions 2.3 Sigla 2.4 African Texts 2.5 The African Tradition: Summary 2.6 European Texts: The 'Core Group' (b ff2 i, with j) 2.7 Codex Vercellensis a and Related Texts 2.8 Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis 2.9 Codex Usserianus r' and the 'Gallo-Irish' Group 2.10 Codex Monacensis q 2.11 Other Fragments 2.12 Mixed Texts 3. Origins—The Synoptic Gospels 3.1 One or Many? 3.2 Methods of Enquiry 3.3 Variations within Gospels 3.4 Matthew 3.5 Mark 3.6 Luke 3.7 Two Synoptic Parallels 3.8 Lucan Traditions: Summary 3.9 Distinctive Readings in the Old Latin Traditions 3.10 General Summary

xi 1 3 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 14 14 15 16 18 19 21

22

23 24 25 26 29 29 31 32 36 44 48 56 56 58 61

viii

Contents

4. Origins—The Gospel of John 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Summary of Tables 4.3 Limitations of Statistical Approach 4.4 The Two Traditions: Group 4.5 Group 2 4.6 Codices Veronensis and Sarzanensis 4.7 The Fragments 4.8 Conclusions

Part II: Aspects of the Translation

62 62 64 64 67 67 72 73 74

75

5. Translation Technique 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Translation Theory in Antiquity 5.3 Modern Study of Ancient Translations 5.4 Modern Translation Theory 5.5 Analysing the Old Latin Gospels

77 77 80 81 82 84

6. Contextual Sensitivity 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Type I: Polysemous Greek Words 6.3 Type 2: Stylistic Considerations 6.4 Type 3: Theological Nuances 6.5 Conclusions

86 86 87 88 92 94

7. Derived Forms 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Examples 7.3 Motivations and Consequences 10

95 95 97 0

8. Rare, 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Literary, and Technical Terms Introduction Rare and Literary Words Technical Words Conclusions 11

9. Number, Size, and Quantity 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Rare Plurals 9.3 Idiomatic Plural for Greek Singular 9.4 Specialized Senses of Singular and Plural 9.5 Size- and Quantity-Adjectives 9.6 Conclusions 10. Semantic Extensions 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Semantic Specialization

103 103 105 109 1 113 113 114 116 116 117 119 120 120 121

Contents 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6

Semiticisms Semantic Extensions Collocational Clashes Conclusions

ix 121 124 126 127

11. Caiques 11.1 Introduction 11.2 'Matching'Words 11.3 Revivals of Older Words and Formations 11.4 Caiques Proper 11.5 Conclusions

129 129 129 130 133 13 5

12. Loan-Words 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Areas of the Lexicon: Secular Words 12.3 Motivation and Integration 12.4 Christian Words 1 12.5 Motivation 1 12.6 Integration 1 12.7 Conclusions 1

137 137 137 141 43 44 47 48

Part III: The Old Latin Gospels as Linguistic Documents 1

49

13. The Latinity 13.1 Introduction 13.2 Vulgar Latin 13.3 Christian Sondersprache 13.4 Late Latin 13.5 Conclusions

151 151 151 153 155 15 6

14. Lexis 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5

157 157 158 165 168 171

Introduction Changes Completed or In Progress Changes Not In Progress Possible Conservatism Conclusions

15. Morphology and Syntax 15.1 Introduction 15.2 Nominal Morphology 15.3 Nominal and Prepositional Syntax 15.4 Adjectival Morphology and Syntax 15.5 Verbal Morphology and Syntax 15.6 Passives 15.7 Reflexives 15.8 Deponents 15.9 Defective Verbs

172 172 172 174 176 178 178 180 181 182

x

Contents 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 15.14 15.15

Periphrases with habere Future Participles Greek Aorist Participle Infinitive of Purpose Indirect Speech Conclusions

183 184 187 187 189 191

Appendix 1: Jerome's Translation Technique

192

References

201

Jndex Rerum Index Verborum Latinorum 2 IndexLocrum20

213 15 220

ABBREVIATIONS

BDF

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., and Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Pearly Christian literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CTL Corpus Tnscriptionum Latinarum (1863-). Berlin: Reimer. DTiLL Ernout, A., and Meillet A. (eds.) (1959). Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latins (4th edn.). Paris: Klincksieck. Fr. French. It. Italian. LHS Leumann, M., Hofmann, J. B., and Szantyr, A. (1965-8). Lateinische Grammatik. Auf der Grundlage des Werkes von Friedrich Sto/% und Joseph Herman Schmal^. Munich: C. H. Beck. MJA see Bibliography, Jtilicher (1963) (1970) (1972) (1976). NA see Bibliography, Nestle, Aland et al. (1985). NJBC Brown, R. E., Fitzmeyer, J. A., and Murphy, R. E. (1989). New Jerome Biblical Commentary. London: Geoffrey Chapman. NT New Testament. OBD Oxford English Dictionary. OLD Glare, P. (ed.) (1982). Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OLG Old Latin Gospels. OOLBT Oxford Old-Latin Biblical Texts. See Wordsworth (1883, 1886), White (1888), Buchanan (1907, 1911). Port. Portuguese. RLW Meyer-Lubke, W. (ed.) (1911-20). Romaniscbes etymologisches Wdrterbuch. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Rom. Romanian. RSV Revised Standard Version. Sp. Spanish. TDNT Kittel, G. (1964). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (English trans, and ed. by G. W. Bromily). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, and Exeter: Paternoster. TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (1900—). Liepzig: Teubner. Vg Vulgate.

This page intentionally left blank

PART I The Textual History of the Old Latin Gospels

This page intentionally left blank

I

Lines of Enquiry

i. i Introduction There are preserved in libraries across Europe some thirty manuscripts, some very fragmentary, which contain translations of the four canonical Gospels which predate the Vulgate of Jerome. These manuscripts, of which about ten are extant at any given point, are collectively known as the 'Old Latin Gospels' (hereafter OLG). The textual relations and language of these manuscripts have received considerable, if uneven, attention from philologists and theologians. This present study is an attempt both to synthesize their work, and to advance it. Three main questions are addressed. How did the OLG come into being? What are the techniques employed by their translators? How far can they be used as sources for the development of post-classical Latin?1 These questions are closely intertwined. Our enquiry into the origins of these versions will take its starting-point from an examination of the translation of certain key words. The knowledge thus gained may cast light on their value as sources for post-classical Latin. An evaluation of the position of the OLG within post-classical Latin will, in turn, help us to see how far the translators are prepared to follow everyday patterns of speech and how far they felt bound by the constraints of latinitas. At this stage it is important to delimit the areas that will not be touched upon. First, our current concern is solely with the Gospels and not with other parts of the Scriptures. Loose references to 'the Latin Bible' appear to presuppose a single monolithic translation; no such homogeneity has 1

An essential introduction to the Old Latin New Testament is given by Fischer (1972). Good surveys of the issues in Old Latin studies are given in Schafer (1957), Metzger (1977: 285—330), Reichmann (1980), Bogaert (1988), and Elliot (1992). For an exhaustive bibliography of Old Latin and cognate studies in recent years see Bogaert (1974, 1995) and Gribomont (1991). These works between them may be taken as representing the scholarly consensus.

4

Textual History of the Old Latin Gospels

been demonstrated, and the term is therefore misleading. Statements made about the origins, translation technique, and language of one part of the Bible should not be generalized to the Bible as a whole. Secondly, we are not directly concerned with the identification of the types of Greek text underlying the various Latin traditions, nor with the value of the OLG for the textual criticism of the Greek Gospels.2 However, the possibility that a particular Latin reading is due to a Greek variant will be raised from time to time, even when the putative variant does not appear in any extant manuscript. The conditions under which the possibility of such an unattested Greek reading may be raised are discussed later in this chapter. Thirdly, we are not directly concerned with the Biblical citations given in the patristic writings.3 The volume of patristic citations of the Gospels would prohibit more than the most cursory examination of this material. In addition to this, there are unique problems with the patristic citations. On encountering a Scriptural reference in the Fathers, we do not necessarily know whether it is intended to be an exact quotation or a loose allusion or conflation of references; whether the writer is making his own version or quoting from an existing one; whether he has the text in front of him or is quoting from memory. Moreover, while there was no official policy before the sixteenth century of substituting the Vulgate readings for the original references in patristic texts, none the less it is likely that copyists familiar with the Vulgate (or other Old Latin, or liturgical) forms of a given passage would unconsciously introduce the words they knew best into their copies of the Fathers. The patristic citations are thus too complex to be dealt with in sufficient depth. However, the Oxford Old Latin editors (of whom more presently) of the last century developed the technique of comparing the readings given in the manuscript traditions with those in the patristic writings, as a means of giving a terminus post quern and perhaps a provenance for the various manuscript traditions. 2 Aland's view (in Nestle et al. 1985: 54) that 'the early versions . . . are frequently unwarrantedly overrated' may stand (despite its tautology) as typical of current critical opinion. Contra Gryson (1988) argues that the Old Latin is a 'temoin privilegie du texte duNouveau Testament'; his argument is cogent for the passage (Matthew 13: 13—15) on which he concentrates, but it is invalid to extrapolate from this to the rest of the Gospels, let alone the NT (New Testament) as a "whole. Certainly the OLG may be used to reconstruct Greek readings from the third and fourth centuries; these readings should then be subject to the normal rules of textual criticism. 1 On the general problem of using patristic citations see Frede (1972).

Lines of Enquiry

5

1.2 Terminology: 'Old Latin' and 'Itala' The term 'Old Latin' (Vetus Latino) is now the generally accepted name for the pre-Jerome translations. The name Itala is often found in the older secondary literature. This term derives from a passage in the second book of Augustine's de Doctrina Christiana: (2. 11) Qui enim saipturas ex hebraea lingua in graecam verterunt numeranpossunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex graecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari . . . (2. 15) In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris praeferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sentential.

The conflicting views on this controversial passage are admirably summarized in Schildenberger (1952),* from which it appears that there are three main opinions. 1. The passage is corrupt. This view was first put forward by Richard Bentley, who proposed the rather banal emendation ilia ceteris praeferatur quae est verborum tenacior. . . . More recent critics have attempted various emendations involving the name of Aquila, the Jewish proselyte who prepared a very literal Greek version of the Jewish scriptures around AD 130. These conjectures, however, lack textual support, and cannot always be justified as being appropriate to the argument of the passage. 2. It is a reference to the Vulgate. Augustine (according to Schildenberger) does quote Isaiah 7: 9 and Isaiah 5 8: 7 in deDoctrina Christiana 2.1 in a form similar to that of the Vulgate, but even if this is not coincidental it cannot be taken to be a wholesale endorsement of Jerome's work/ Nor is there any other evidence for Itala as a name of the Vulgate. 3. It is a reference to an existing Old Latin tradition. This is the traditional interpretation, held by Sabatier and Jiilicher; it is also upheld by Schildenberger. It is rather more plausible than the alternatives, but presents two main problems. First, it seems to take Itala to refer to a single translation of the whole canon of Scripture. In fact one- or twovolume sets of this sort (that is, pandects) are not known to have existed before the sixth century. It is known that translations of some 4

See also summary in Metzger (1977: 290—3). ^ 'Augustine appears to have used Jerome's gospels regularly since about the year 400, yet nowhere does he betray the slightest knowledge of a version by Jerome of any other book in the New Testament . . . nor does he ever appear to quote the Vulgate beyond the gospels' (Sparks 1970: 519).

6

Textual History of the Old I^tin Gospels

related books of the New Testament were circulated together; this is true of the Pauline corpus and the Catholic Epistles, and, it will be argued, of the Gospels too. But it is strange that Augustine should be able to speak without further qualification of a single Itala. Secondly, it is impossible to tie the term Itala to a single known tradition; Augustine's many biblical citations and allusions have not been identified with any one extant manuscript type. The complications of this issue are such that, as the distinguished scholar Bonifatius Fischer observes, the term is best avoided.6 Accordingly, we shall concentrate instead on the actual texts of the manuscripts, and on what can be deduced about their relationships on purely internal grounds. The channels of communication between Latin Christian communities by which the various traditions circulated lie outside the scope of the present study; an evaluation of what the manuscript relations are must precede a study of how they came about.

1.3 Vulgate and Mixed Texts Although we have talked in terms of a division between 'Old Latin' and 'Vulgate' translations, it should be noted that this division is in practice not such a neat one. The Vulgate Gospels were, as Jerome states, intended to be a minimal revision of the existing Old Latin versions, and do bear a strong resemblance to them. It has also been questioned how far modern texts of the Vulgate actually represent Jerome's work. There are two main problems: first, knowing which books Jerome actually revised; and secondly, knowing in the case of the books he did revise how far the extant manuscripts actually represent his work. As to the Gospels, it is beyond doubt that Jerome did revise them, and the manuscript evidence for them is extremely good. All the great early Vulgate manuscripts—Codex Amiatinus (C8), Codex Cavensis (Cg), Codex Dublinensis (C8~9), 66 'Heute wird es besser vermieden, well er unklar ist, hauptsachlich wegen der verschiedenartigen Bedeutungen, die ihm beigelegt werden' (Fischer 1972: 5). 7 In the Epistula adDamasum prefatory to the Vulgate Gospels Jerome writes '. . . ita calamo imperavimus (or temperavimus] ut his tantum quae semum videbantur mutare correctis, rdiqua manere patvrvmur ut favranf', the nature of Jerome's linguistic revision is examined in Appendix i. The Greek and Latin bases of the Vulgate Gospels are analysed by Vogels (192812). On the general background to Jerome's work see Sparks (1970), Kelly (1975). On the early textual history of the Vulgate see Berger (1893).

Lines of Enquiry

7

Codex Fuldensis (C6), Codex Mediolanensis (C6), Lindisfarne Gospels (Cy), Codex Harleianus (C6—7), Codex Sangallensis (Cj), Pierpoint Gospels (Cio)—contain the Gospels. Modern editors are thus able to go beyond the revision associated with Alcuin, not to mention the much later Sixtine and Clementine editions. The Old Latin texts did not go out of use when the Vulgate appeared. The oldest extant Old Latin manuscripts date only to the end of the fourth century, that is, around the time when the Vulgate appeared. Most date from around the fifth to eighth centuries, with the latest from the thirteenth. The Old Latin texts were thus in circulation alongside the Vulgate. Inevitably, there was much cross-fertilization between the two traditions, as Vulgate readings crept into texts that were basically Old Latin, and vice versa. In modern times it has become customary to describe as 'mixed' those texts which are fundamentally Old Latin in type, but with a distinctive Vulgate overlay. It is not always easy to distinguish in any individual passage whether a manuscript should be regarded as Vulgate or Old Latin. However, given a larger portion of the text, the identification becomes easier. The most distinctive feature is the readings of the text. Jerome's major contribution to Latin Gospels was his ability7 as a textual critic; at many7 points the Vulgate differs from the Old Latin in following a text closer to that found in modern Greek editions. The renderings are also important; if a manuscript frequently agrees in its renderings with the Vulgate against the undisputed Old Latin traditions, it is likely to be a mixed text. (Occasional correspondences are non-diagnostic; the copyist may be unconsciously recalling the Vulgate, or coincidentally altering the wording in the direction of the Vulgate, or simply copying older material which had anticipated the Vulgate.) The third feature of mixed texts is the order of the Gospels. 'Pure' Old Latin texts have the 'Western' order Matthew-John-Mark-Luke (found also in the Greek 'Western Text' and the Gothic version), whereas Jerome preferred the more familiar 'Eastern Order'. Of the thirteen main manuscripts traditionally classed as Old Latin (see Chapter 2), no fewer than six are mixed texts. The level of Vulgate admixture varies considerably; it will be argued that in John two socalled 'Old Latin' manuscripts are basically Vulgate texts with Old Latin elements rather than the reverse. Nor is it always easy to identify which elements within a mixed text are Old Latin and which are Vulgate. For the purposes of this study the following principle will be observed: any reading found in a knoivn mixed text, agreeing with the Vulgate

8

Textual History of the Old Latin Gospels

but not found outside the Vulgate and the other mixed texts, may be attributed to Vulgate influence. Occasional similarities between Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts may of course be coincidental; but in manuscripts where these resemblances frequently occur this explanation is merely otiose special pleading. Pushed to its logical extreme, it would require us to believe that two wholly identical translations of the same text (of potentially infinite length) were not genetically related to each other. The direction of the influence, however, cannot be proven absolutely. It is possible to maintain that the 'mixed texts' are in fact a pure Old Latin tradition which Jerome took as the basis for his revision, and that this accounts for their similarity to the Vulgate. But there is a serious chronological embarrassment; the oldest extant OLG manuscripts—roughly contemporaneous with the Vulgate, and representing traditions known from the patristic citations to be older—do not belong to the so-called mixed-text group, none of which is earlier than the sixth century. Again, it is possible to maintain that manuscripts of this type were indeed in circulation in the late fourth century, but no exemplars from this period have survived; but this ex silentio argument is worthless precisely because it cannot be disproved.

1.4 Editions For many parts of the Scriptures the most accessible edition is still Sabatier's monumental Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones (1743). How ever, in respect of the Gospels it has been superseded, mostly through the efforts of the editors of the Oxford Old Latin Biblical Text series (OOLBT), J. Wordsworth, J. Sanday, H. J. White, and E. Buchanan, between 1882 and 1911, and the studies of Heinrich Vogels between 1913 and 1953. The unique contribution of these scholars was to examine each manuscript minutely7 and individually7, with a view to recovering not only its text but its relations with other manuscripts, and the various stages in its prehistory that could be discerned. This contrasts on the one hand with Sabatier's view (derived from his reading of the Itala passage in Augustine's de Doctrina Christiana] of a single unified Old Latin Bible, and on the other hand with the account given by Ziegler (1879), wno had argued in favour of a multiplicity of translations, also on the basis of the statements in the Fathers rather than on an examination of the extant texts. The findings of Vogels and

Lines of Enquiry

9

the Oxford editors are summarized in Chapter 2. Among the other scholars, particular mention may be made of F. C. Burkitt, who first established connections between the Gothic Bible and a branch of the Old Latin. The speculations of J. Rendel Harris (notably on Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis) were less temperate, though it is unfortunate that many of the questions raised by him (especially on the position of the Old Latin vis-a-vis the Old Syriac) have yet to be answered. The work of J. Belsheim in editing several of the manuscripts should also be mentioned; unfortunately, his texts have been found unreliable in many places and his introductions failed to take into account the methods being applied by the contemporary Oxford series. Since 1949 a major series of volumes has been published by the Stiftung (now Institut) Vetus Latina at Beuron in South Germany. These aim to provide a 'new Sabatier', presenting not only all the manuscript evidence but also all the relevant patristic material. This splendid series has, however, not yet been extended to cover the Gospels. For the individual Gospel manuscripts at least, the best texts are still usually the Oxford editions.8

i. 5 Matzkow-Jiilicher-Aland But excellent as the Oxford texts are, it is inconvenient to the point of impracticality to rely on separate editions of each individual manuscript. For this reason the edition that will be used here is the Itala of Adolf Jiilicher, revised by Walther Matzkow and Kurt Aland (hereafter MJA). Churlish as it may seem, we should still consider the limitations of this invaluable edition before proceeding further. Jiilicher adopted the format of an upper line of text giving a version he designated 'Itala', and a lower line giving one designated 'Afra'.9 This assumes both a neat division between traditions and a degree of homogeneity within them that Jiilicher did not attempt to demonstrate. The problem is aggravated by the fact that in the top line of the 'Itala' section Jiilicher did not follow any one manuscript (as he did in the 'Afra'), but attempted a composite reconstruction from various manuscripts. No rationale was given for this reconstruction, and the revisers 8 The most thorough collection of Latin Gospel readings is Fischer (1989). However, with an average of four Latin words per page it cannot well be read as continuous text. 9 For a discussion of the origin and value of this term see Ch. 2.

io

Textual History of the OldlMtin Gospels

retained it only out of respect for the original editor.10 It will be argued that for the Synoptic Gospels Jiilicher's assumption is, in fact, broadly valid, whereas for the Gospel of John it is misleading. In order to compress so many manuscripts into this format Jiilicher was obliged to omit details of columniation of texts, of capital letters, and of lectionary notes, which often give information about the relationship between manuscripts. Less pardonably, he was inconsistent in giving variants of orthography or of abbreviations; occasionally the individual editions of manuscripts give non-standard spellings where MJA has the standard forms. In these cases the non-standard spellings are more likely to be correct. The MJA volumes are now out of date in one important respect. The text of the Vulgate cited was the Oxford edition of J. Wordsworth et al. (1898). This has now been superseded by the so-called 'Stuttgart Vulgate' of R. Weber et al. (1969).

1.6 'Typical' Renderings Citations from MJA in this study will often give the reading of only one manuscript, or (less frequently) of Jiilicher's reconstructed 'Itala' line, noting that this is the 'typical' rendering, or that a 'similar' rendering is found in a range of manuscripts. Some gloss is needed. In such cases there may be considerable differences between the extant texts; a reading is regarded as 'typical' of a larger group ivhen it agrees with them on the specific point under discussion. Thus for example in Appendix i the translation practices of the Old Latin and the Vulgate are compared and contrasted. It is noted that in the Parable of the Tenants in the Vineyard the Old Latin translators usually render o yecopyoj by the more specific colonus ('tenant'), whereas the Vulgate has the more general agricola. Thus it might be said that at Matthew 21:35 the Old Latin texts designated a b dff2 h q r' e typically have the rendering et coloni adprehensis servis unum ceciderunt, they all agree in reading coloni, against agricolae in the Vulgate and mixed texts aurfg11. In fact, there is some divergence between them; jf r1 have coloni autem, e has the spellings adpraehensis and caeciderunt, d (here as often the most idiosyncratic) has accipientes servos coloni eius quern quidem ceciderunt. This is an extreme case, and most of the variations thus passed over by this 10 'Von der urspriinglichen Arbeit Jiilichers is nur die Leitzeile geblieben und zwar als Akt der Pietat' (Aland in intro. to MJA vol. iii).

lines of Enquiry

11

method are of the minor kind: et for autem, small differences in word order or orthography. These may be matters of some importance for critics concerned with tracing the affiliations and prehistory of individual manuscripts. But in the context of a comparison of Old Latin and Vulgate translation technique they are less relevant, and may be omitted. The point of citing texts in their 'typical' form is to include all the facts germane to the issue at stake, while passing over those that are not.

1.7 Greek Variants It has been mentioned above that manuscripts may differ not only in their rendering of the Greek, but also in the reading of their underlying Greek text. Such differences are easy to identify in cases where the Latin reflects an attested Greek variant.11 To take a simple example, in the Transfiguration story at Matthew 17: 2 Jesus' clothes become 'white as light', Aeiwa ais TO (f>a>s. In all the Old Latin traditions save Codex Monacensis q, and in the Vulgate, this appears as Candida (or alba] sicat nix. This must reflect the variant 019 \id>v found in the Greek half of Codex Bezae (D),12 supported by the Curetonian Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic; it is perverse to imagine that it could have arisen in so many places independently. However, sometimes the Latin text does not correspond exactly to any attested form of the Greek; it may be hard to discern whether the Latin translators are making a free rendering of an attested text, or following a lost Greek tradition. Appeals to lost readings cannot by definition be verified and so must be made with caution. In this study such appeals will be made only when one or more of the following circumstances obtains: i. If the Latin text cannot reflect any attested Greek reading. For example, at Luke 4: 19 most Latin texts have praedicare annum acceptum Domini et diem retributionis or similar; the Greek has simply Krjpv^ai eviavTov Kvpiov SeKrov. The last three words of the Latin (or others 11 A reading is counted as attested if it is listed in the text or apparatus of Nestle et al (1985) or (in the case of Matthew and Mark) of Legg (1937 and 1940). I much regret that the continuation of this work by the American and British Committee of the International Greek New Testament Project came to my attention too late to allow me to make full use of it. 12 Not in itself good authority, as this is a Greek—Latin bilingual codex, and the reading may be a back-translation from the Latin half of the codex.

12

Textual History of the Old I^tin Gospels

corresponding to them) are missing only from Codex Bezae d; the passage is a citation from Isaiah 61:2 and has clearly been added to the Greek from the Septuagint, though there is no direct attestation of this. 2. If the Latin text corresponds not to the attested Greek text but to one which could have arisen from a plausible palaeographical variation. Thus at Luke 5: 10 most Old Latin texts have ex hoc iam eris homines vivificans for the Greek O.TTO TOV vvv avdpcorrovs ear/ £ojypcov; the Latin would suggest an unattested variant ^OIOTTOLWV or £ojoyovoJv. 3. If the Greek variant is not attested at the place in question, but variants of the same type are attested elsewhere. This is particularly frequent in the case of near-synonyms, where often the less common term is displaced by the more common. Thus at Matthew 27: 15, 20, 24 the word populus is found in almost all the Latin manuscripts where modern editors read o o^Ao?. Now populus does not usually translate o o^Aos but o Aaos, which is in fact attested as a variant to o o'^Ao? in a few Greek codices at Matthew 27: 24, though not at verses 15, 20. Conversely o 6'xAoj is sometimes found as a variant for o Aao? (for example, at Mark n: 32). Clearly, the two terms are to some extent interchangeable in the Greek; it is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that at Matthew 27: 15, 20 the reading o Aaos underlay the rendering populus, even though it is not directly attested. 4. (In the Synoptic Gospels) If the Latin corresponds not to the accepted form of the Greek text at that point but to the form of the same passage found in the Synoptic parallels. For instance at Mark 4: 19 the word rj aiTarr] (or aira-rac, in the phrase rj aira,Ti] TOV TT\OVTOV) in modern editions appears in various Old Latin traditions as delectationes (c ff2}, inlecebrae (/), or oblectationes (e). These words may be regarded as interpretative glosses on cu atrarai, but are more likely to reflect the reading VTTO ^epi^v&v Kai TT\OVTOV KO.L r/oovaiv TOV jSiov in the parallel passage Luke 8: 14, though no such reading is attested at Mark 4: 19. These are the conditions under which it has been thought legitimate to propose an unattested variant in the Greek. It should be noted that we are not here concerned with the reconstruction of the Vorlage (underlying Greek text) for its own sake, but only where it casts light upon some difficulty in the Latin. When a Latin text or texts does not give an obvious rendering of the Greek, some criteria are needed for deciding whether the translators are following a variant reading or adopting a freer technique of translation. It should be added that while the principles listed above are quite straightforward, their application is

Lines of Enquiry

13

less so. In the last example, for instance, it might be argued that 'the delights' (delectationes, inlecebrae, oblectationes) of wealth was an interpretative gloss on 'the deceits' of wealth, and were renderings of at OLTTOLTOLL. However, on a balance of probabilities it seems more likely that the translations delectationes, inlecebrae, oblectationes are literal renderings of an underlying variant, though this is impossible to prove.

2

Catalogue of Manuscripts

2.1 Introduction The following brief catalogue and bibliography summarizes the common opinion on each of the Gospel manuscripts and fragments classed by MJA as Old Latin. As we have noted, the distinction between 'mixed text' and 'Vulgate' is often arbitrary; Metzger (1977: 296-302) and Fischer (1987) give respectively longer and shorter lists. It should be repeated that the level of knowledge we possess about the manuscripts varies greatly, depending on how much scholarly attention each one has received. Moreover, many of the standard editions are now dated, and new palaeographical research is needed upon them. For modern assessments of the date and place of origin of many of them I have followed the list given in Fischer (1987). This differs on various points from the theories advanced by the Oxford editors a century ago.

2.2 'African' and 'European' Traditions In the following summaries the terms 'African' and 'European' will be used to characterize the text-type of the manuscripts; the 'European' tradition will also be treated according to its various recognized subgroups. This division was first advanced by Westcott and Hort (1881: 81—3), who divided the manuscripts into four categories: the 'African' (Vl/nz') class, comprising Codex Bobbiensis k and Codex Palatinus e; the 'European' class, comprising the codices and fragments labelled a a2 b c ff2 h i; a 'North Italian' class comprising Codex Monacensis q and Codex Brixianus^ which they unfortunately chose to call the 'Itala; and the class of 'Mixed Texts' described in the previous chapter, comprising the codices labelled aur c ff' g' I. Subsequent research, mainly by the Oxford editors and by Heinrich Vogels, has upheld the existence of a separate African class, while

Catalogue of Manuscripts

15

pointing to the existence of a strong 'European' element in Codex Palatinus e, and at the same time a strong African element in some of the 'European' texts.1 The 'Itala' category has not survived; not only is the name now regarded as unhelpful, but Codex Brixianus f is now ascribed to the 'Mixed Text' class.2 The African/European distinction was adopted by Jiilicher in his edition, though as noted above he reconstructed a hypothetical 'Itala' line out of the European traditions. It has always been acknowledged that while the two 'African' texts are fairly closely related, the same degree of homogeneity does not obtain within the European tradition. In fact the relations between the European manuscripts are very imperfectly understood; it is hoped that the next chapter will resolve some of the questions surrounding them. Certain European manuscripts do belong very closely together (for instance the group a a2 n o, at least in the Synoptic Gospels), while other groupings are looser. This catalogue is intended to give only such common opinion as already exists about manuscript groupings; the question of textual relations will be examined further in the two following chapters.

2.3 Sigla OLG codices generally have a name and a small roman letter abbreviation. Thus the Latin text of the bilingual manuscript known as Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis is referred to as d (but contrast D for the Greek text). This system is not wholly satisfactory, as codices containing different Old Latin books may share the same name or letter. For this reason the Institut Vetus-Latina has assigned each Old Latin manuscript a unique number, which in this catalogue is given after the traditional letter siglum. However, as the older small-letter system is used in virtually all the literature on the subject, and as we will 1

Often this leads to so-called 'double translations' (Poppeliiberset^ungen), instances where an editor—copyist—translator has combined an African and a European rendering of the same Greek term. Thus at Matthew 6: 20 the Greek QTTQV ovrc arjs ovrt fipaiai? atjiavl^ei appears in the African k as ubi neque tinia neque comestura exterminat, in the European tradition typically as ubi neque erugo neque tinea exterminat; the editor of q conflates these as ubi neque erugo neque tinea neque comestura exterminat. Such conflations are particularly likely to occur when the meaning is obscure; the editor of q probably did not realize that the very rare comestura represented the same Greek word as erugo. 2 In {a.ctfq do often follow the same text-type, that found in Arian writers and in the Gothic Bible; but there is no evidence of a more direct relationship between them.

16

Textual History of the Old Latin Gospels

not be dealing with Old Latin translations of the other books, it is more convenient to retain it. Recently Fischer (1987) has attempted to introduce another qualifier; in his exhaustive catalogue of Latin Gospel manuscripts before AD 1000 he lists the Old Latin manuscripts with an X followed by a small roman letter, which confusingly is only sometimes the same as its traditional designation. Thus Codex Vercellensis a is listed as Xa, and Codex Corbeiensis ff2 is Xf, while Codex Brixianus, traditionally known as_/J is now classed as an Italian Vulgate manuscript Jg. It remains to be seen whether this system will replace the more traditional one.

2.4 African Texts Codex Bobbiensis k (i).3 This is a fourth-century African codex containing a lacunate text of Mark 8: 8-14: 9 and Matthew 11-15: 36, suggesting original order of John—Luke—Mark—Matthew found in some Western Greek manuscripts (Wordsworth et al. 1886: pp. vii—xxii). It is believed to be a fourth-century African text. Bakker (1933: 13) shows that the scribe is an illiterate copyist: 'where he writes nonsense, he does so by using more or less correct Latin words, with which he has evidently become acquainted in transcribing other Latin MSS'; thus at Matthew 13: 23 he writes quod autem in bona terra femina turba est qui audit verbum, for quod . . . seminatur hoc est. . . . The text of k corresponds closely with the form of Gospel citations in Cyprian of Carthage; a text of this type was, therefore, in use in Africa by the mid-third century. There are also correspondences with the quotations in the antiDonatist historian Optatus of Milev (ft. 364-75). Sanday (in Wordsworth et al. 1886) argues that Optatus' citations are 'more African' than k's; thus in citing Matthew 5: 9 Optatus uses the Africans/we to render lj.ai This is a fragment from the seventh or eighth century, containing Mark 16: 14—20, beginning at the point where » breaks off, and has the same number of lines per page; it may have been written as a replacement for a missing leaf from «.

2.8 Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis d (j). 22 This is a bilingual Greek—Latin codex (the only Gospel manuscript of this type; the Greek half is referred to as D), containing (in order) Matthew—John—Luke—MarkActs. It is now dated to around AD 400; Parker (1992: 269 ff.) argues for Berytus (Beirut) as the place of composition. The Latin translation is by far the most literal of all the Old Latin texts, and the Greek seems to contain back-translations from errors or additions in the Latin;23 this must always be borne in mind when discussing translation technique in this manuscript. Of particular interest is the so-called 'Cambridge pericope', an episode inserted after Luke 6: 4 and unknown else20

Standard edn. Wordsworth et aL (1886). MJA add text of John 19: 24-7, illegible to Oxford editors. See also Bischoff (1946: 420—4). 21 Standard edn. Wordsworth et aL (1886). 22 Of the considerable bibliography this text has produced the following studies are the most noteworthy: Scrivener (1864) (the only modern text of codex); Rendel Harris (1891), an eccentric and often wrong-headed but stimulating discussion; Stone (1946), a linguistic study. Bammel (1986) is an investigation of the so-called 'Cambridge Pericope' (see below). Parker (1992) is an exhaustive palaeographical and codicological study. Parker makes it a principle that a rigorous examination of each individual codex and its internal history must precede any speculation about its relations to other texts; for this reason he does not investigate its relations to other Old Latin (or Greek) texts. The essays in Parker and Amphoux (1996) are also valuable; for present purposes, most notable is Auwers'. 23 Most notably at Luke 23: 53, where the Greek has the unique addition avrov eireBriKev rat [j,vrnj,eia> \ei8ov ov ftoyu eiKoai eKvAiov, Latin imposuit in monumento lapidvm quvm vix viginti movervnt. Rendel Harris (1891: 47—52) explains this by suggesting that Latin In monumento has been added from the preceding verse, and that the original was a Latin hexameter imposuit lapidem quern vix nifinti mmierent (cf. Odyssey ix. 240—2; Cyclops blocking entrance to his cave).

Catalogue of Manuscripts

23

where.24 The Latin translation is highly eccentric but is recognized as basically European with a strong African element. In Mark the African element is less striking (Bakker 1933: 42); Buchanan (1911: p. xxi) observes that in this Gospel 'd stands midway between b and ff2 in the first half . . . and nearer to b in this second half. It will be argued that in Luke d shows a special closeness to a, and in John to a b e j q r1.

2.9 Codex Usserianus r' and 'Gallo-Irish' Group25 Codex Usserianus r' (14).26 This is a codex written in Ireland around AD 600, containing the Four Gospels. The manuscript is now illegible in many places. The text of John 8: i—11 (Woman taken in Adultery) is that of the Vulgate. This codex is grouped by Fischer (1972: 36) with JS h p p as 'Gallo-Irish'.27 These other texts are all fragmentary and nowhere overlap; they cannot be compared direcdy with each other, and are united only in their similarity to r'. Vogels (1928^: 43-4) finds similarities between r' and citations in Hilary of Poitiers. In John he suggests it is closest to b, but going its own way after John 9: 22; however, he mistakenly took b as the norm, and differences from it as departures from it. It will be shown that in fact b departs from the tradition exemplified by r''. Codex Claromontanus h (i2). 28 This is a late-fifth-century Italian manuscript containing an Old Latin version of Matthew, in a form similar to that of r'. The other Gospels in the codex are seventhcentury Vulgate texts. Fragmentum Carinthianum |3 (26).29 This consists of two leaves containing Luke i: 64—2: 50 in a seventh-century hand, preserved in 24Greek TOV vofjtov, Latin eodem die videns quendam operantem sabbato et dixit UK, homo, siquidem stis quod fads, beatus es. si autem nescis, maledictus es et trabaricator legis. 20 See also Sect. 2. 11, subsect. on Rosenthal Fragment \. 26 Standard edn. Abbot (1884). The quality of Abbot's text of r2 (the 'Garland of Howth', Irish Vulgate manuscript with many Old Latin readings) is severely impugned by Hoskier (1919), and his introduction to r' is less detailed than the contemporary work of the Oxford scholars. However, his text of r1 is defended by Wilmart (1922).

27 This description is rather vague. Codex Claromontanus h is now classed as Italian, not Gallic, and not all the Gallic manuscripts fall into this group. 28 Standard edn. Belsheim (1892); minor corrections by Burkitt (1903^). 29 Standard edn. De Bruyne (19231?).

24

Textual History of the Old I^tin Gospels

the binding of a text of Ambrose. According to De Bruyne it is basically African with an overlay of r' text-type (with some readings found in Irish Vulgates), which is stronger after Luke 2: 20. Fragmenta Ambrosiana p (24) .J° This is a palimpsest of a Gallican liturgical work, with text of John 13: 3—17 (Jesus washing his disciples' feet) from around AD 700, very similar to r1. Fragmentum Sangallense p (20).31 This consists of two leaves from a Miss a pro Defunctis containing John n: 16—44, in an Irish hand of seventh or eighth century, in a form similar to r1.

2.10 Codex Monacensis q Codex Monacensis q (i3).32 This is a codex containing the Four Gospels, now bound in the Vulgate order, but originally in Old Latin order. It is thought to be from Illyria or North Italy, and to have been written around AD 600. Fischer (1987: 56) states that q and /form 'eine europaische Nebengruppe', being based on a text of the b ff2 i -type; but see Vogels' comments on / (195 3, p. xxviii, cited below, note 46). In John it belongs with a b d e j q r' group.33 The text has been revised throughout according to a Greek text, but in Mark keeps much of its old character (Vogels 1953: 17). According to Fischer (1972: 36), q shows some correspondences with citations in some fourth- and fifthcentury Arian writers (unspecified). There are also frequent similarities in text with the Gothic Bible, often shared with f and Fragmentum Vindobonense (43), though unlike these manuscripts q merely shares readings with the Gothic without showing any signs of containing back-translations from it. 30

Standard edn. (Wiknart 1922). Standard edn. Wordsworth et at. (1886); see also Bischoff (1946: 425—7). It should be noted that^ (20) is not the same as Fragmentum Vindobonense (see Sect. 2. n). Fischer (1972) refers to p (20) as/), but Fischer (1987) lists Fragmentum Vindobonense as Xp (43), and does not mention p (20) at all. 32 Standard edn. White (1888). " Vogels (1928^: 46—7) states that in the early chapters of John q is closest to /?, and then to r' in the later chapters. This suggests that q changes its allegiances halfway through. It will be shown, however, that it is b that changes (cf. the description of r' above). 11

Catalogue of Manuscripts

25

2.11 Other Fragments Fragmentum Monacense /u..34 This is a palimpsest of Matthew 9: 17— i o: 9 in a fifth-century Italian hand. The text is basically European but with a stronger African element than any other text extant for this passage, save d. Rosenthal Fragment A. " This is a fragment containing Luke 16: 27— 17: 27. According to Fischer (1986: 196 n. 87) it is Irish, from the eighth or ninth century, with a text and hand resembling that of f 2 , the Irish Vulgate manuscript known as the 'Garland of Howth'. Fragmentum Vindobonensep (43).j6 This is a palimpsest containing fragments of Matthew 26—8, from the fifth century, perhaps from North Italy. The underlying text is very similar to that of the Gothic Bible, and there are strong indications that, Uke_/J it is derived from a Latin-Gothic bilingual.37 Fragmenta Stuttgartensia TT (or w) (i8)/'8 This is a palimpsest of a seventh-century collection of pericopae from Matthew, John, and Luke, from North Italy. Dold suggests they belong in the European tradition, but finds no more specific affinities; in John the text belongs with the ff2 type. Fragmenta Ambrosiana s (2i)/'9 These are fragments of Luke 17—21 from the sixth or seventh century, probably from Bobbio. The text is European, but with African influence; there are some similarities with citations in Cyprian. 14 Standard edn. Fischer (1986). This is the most recently published of all OLG texts, and may be taken to represent the state of the scholarly art. However, it is remarkable how little the broad lines of enquiry have changed since the Oxford series a century before. Fischer attempts to tabulate and quantify the relationship between p. and the other manuscripts, but his figures are undermined by the fact that his system cannot distinguish between major and minor (perhaps casual) agreements of reading and rendering. While the results of such an approach are doubtless broadly correct, they may be less precise than they appear. " No individual edn. Text is in MJA. 36 Standard edn. Philippart (1972). See also note on Fragmentum Sangallense^ (20) regarding problem of sigla. 3 This thesis is developed by Burton (1996). M 18 Standard edn. Dold (1923). Standard edn. Wordsworth et al. (1886).

26

Textual History of the Old I^tin Gospels

Fragmentum Bernense / (i9).40 This consists of a palimpsest fragment of Mark 1-3, from the fourth or fifth century, showing some similarities to d. Aberdeen Fragment 23.H This is a papyrus fragment containing John 7: 27-8, 30-1. Winstedt dated it to the fifth century, but did not speculate on its provenance. The text is too short to identify any affinities. Fragmentum Vindobonense v (25). 42 This is a fragment containing John 19: 27—20: 11, dated to the sixth or seventh century, of uncertain provenance. The text is carelessly written, mutilated, and often illegible.

2.12 Mixed Texts Codex Aureus aur (i5). 43 This is a codex containing the Four Gospels, in Vulgate order and prefaced by Jerome's Epistula ad Damasum. It is so called because some keywords are written in golden ink. It is dated to the second half of the eighth century. An Old English note records its donation to Canterbury Cathedral by one Ealdorman Aelfred; the donor has been identified with a Kentish ealdorman whose will is extant and can be dated between 871 and 889. The text is very close to that of the Vulgate; Fischer (1987) does not class it as Old Latin at all, and it is argued below (see Chapter 4) that in John at least it should be regarded as Vulgate. Codex Sangermanensis g' (y).44 This is the text of Matthew from the second volume of a mid-ninth-century set comprising the Vulgate and the Latin Pastor Hermae. The text has an Old Latin base (of b ff2 i type) with Vulgate overlay; from Matthew 21 onwards the Vulgate element is dominant. Vogels (1953: 7) states that there are similarities in the layout of the text to Codex Claromontanus h, but the readings themselves do not seem to be closely related. 40 41 42 43 44

Standard edn. Wordsworth et al. (1886). Text in Winstedt (1907), and MJA. Standard edn. Wordsworth et al. (1886). Only individual edn. Belsheim (1878). Standard edn. Wordsworth (1883).

Catalogue of Manuscripts

27

Codex Rehdigeranus / (n).4D This is a codex containing the Four Gospels, from the first half of the eighth century, from Aquileia. The text is basically European, of b ff2 i type, heavily overlaid with Vulgate readings. It is assigned by Fischer (1987: 56) with q to a European subgroup, but Vogels was reluctant to link it to any other Old Latin tradition.46 In John / is clearly an Old Latin text of ff2 type. Codex Brixianusy(io).47 This is a North Italian codex containing the Four Gospels, from the first half of the sixth century. Burkitt (i 900*2) argued that certain peculiarities of the text are best explained as retranslations from a parallel Gothic text; similarly some of the underlying Greek readings derive from a text-type related to that found in the Gothic Bible.48 It is heavily overlaid with Vulgate readings; Fischer (1987: 58) regards it as Vulgate. It is suggested below (see Chapter 4) that in John at least this classification is correct. Codex Colbertinus c (6).49 This is a Southern French codex from the twelfth century, containing the Latin New Testament. John i—6 and the entire remaining New Testament have the Vulgate text; the Gospels are in Vulgate order. Vogels identifies three distinct strata in its development: an African base, particularly strong in Luke 7—24, a European Old Latin layer most closely related to Jf2, and a Vulgate layer, strongest in Matthew. The statement that the text is basically African3" is not always accurate. Certainly it is strongly related to the African tradition; but if the basis is African, then it has been so heavily overlaid by the jf type and Vulgate that the resulting text is at least as much European. In the following chapters it will be suggested that c in Luke shows a blend of European and African elements that often cause it to correspond to a d e, and that in John it is firmly linked to ff2. 43

Standard edn. Vogels (1913). 'Bald geht / m i t diesem, bald mit jenem Altlateiner' (Vogels (1953: p. xxviii). He does link it with e\ but as /has no distinctly African element the influence would seem to be from / type to e rather than vice versa. 4 There is no individual edn. of this codex. The text used is that in MJA. Burkitt (1900^) established the origin of this text as the Latin half of a Gothic—Latin bilingual. 48 See Sect. 2. n, subsect. on Fragmentum Vindobonensep (43). 49 Standard edn. Vogels (1953). =0 Fischer (1972: 34 and 1987: 54) speaks of'eine afrikanische Grundschicht'. 46

i8

Textual History of the Old I^tin Gospels

Codex Corbeiensis ff' (9).51 This is a codex containg the text of Matthew, from Corbie; it is dated by Vogels to the tenth century, but by Fischer to the eighth. The text is very close to the Vulgate, especially in the early chapters; the Old Latin element is more apparent later on (Vogels 1928*: 18). 51

No individual edn.; text from MIA.

3 Origins—The Synoptic Gospels

3.1 One or Many? In the preceding chapter we have listed every OLG manuscript individually, and summarized the textual relations of each. The tracing of these textual relations and the discovery of different strata of tradition within the manuscripts was the main critical achievement of the twentieth and late nineteenth centuries. However, this research has tended to overlook a larger question; do these manuscripts all stem from one common source, or were they originally independent of each other? It is surprising to find how little systematic treatment this question has received. Even such observations as scholars have made, have not been fully synthesized and developed. In this section I will summarize the general scholarly opinion on the subject, propose methods by which the question may be approached, and then attempt to apply these methods. In the absence of any definitive study of the origins of the Old Latin versions of the New Testament, scholars have naturally tended to assume the scenario that seemed intrinsically most probable. However, notions of intrinsic probability may vary. The examples of four distinguished authorities will suffice to illustrate this. The Vulgate scholar Hedley Sparks (1940: 105) seems to have assumed that the Old Latin Bible did derive from a single source, but observes that sometimes the variations between the texts 'are so great as to raise the question whether we have any right to speak of the Old Latin in the singular at all, but ought not rather to speak of a plurality of Latin versions'. Bruce M. Metzger (1977: 330) proceeds in the opposite direction; after noting the variety of extant traditions, he states that 'despite the many diversities of readings and renderings . . . here and there one finds a surprising unanimity, suggesting a common archetype at least for one or another book of the New Testament'. The Latin philologist L. R. Palmer (1954: 184) supposes that 'the earliest Latin versions . . . were probably made piecemeal and without any central

30

Textual History of the Old iMtin Gospels

direction or organization'.1 For Bonifatius Fischer (1972: 13) the whole question of whether the Old Latin should be regarded as one or many is 'a quarrel about words';2 a view which I will argue is excessively pessimistic. More specific works on particular portions of the Old Latin Bible have revealed a primal unity for many books. Schafer (1957: 24) and Schildenberger (1952: 100 n. 44) could list studies demonstrating the primal unity of the Old Latin books of Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Acts; Schafer also argues for two original translations of Hebrews. On the Gospels, however, there is a conspicuous silence. Fischer's description of the manuscripts b ff2 i as 'die Kerngruppe des europaischen Textes' has been cited above,3 but it is unclear exactly what this metaphor means. While it implies some sort of centrality for that group, it leaves open the question of whether it should be seen as the best representative of a single tradition from which all the others derive, or the most influential of several different but interrelated groups, or whether it is merely a sort of highest common factor of various basically independent manuscripts. Reichmann (1980: 174) states that the term 'European' does not mean that the manuscripts so described form a discrete group,4 but it is not clear from his account what if anything it does mean. As has been noted, Heinrich Vogels detected an African element in all the European traditions,3 and in this respect they may be said on his account to derive from a common source. This, however, leaves open the question of whether there existed a distinct European source, incorporating the African version, from which all the European traditions stem.' 1

This may be true of the lost Latin versions from the second century, such as Tertullian mentions (adversus Mamonem 2. 9). But the oldest of the extant OLG texttypes cannot be traced back beyond the time of Cyprian of Carthage, whose citations are quite unlike Tertullian's. 2 'Es ist fast ein Streit um Worte, ob wir fur die Vetus Latina eine einzige Ubersetzung annehmen, deren Text sich sofort in verschiedene Typen und Formen spaltet und entwickelt, oder aber zwei oder mehr Ubersetzungen, bei denen die jiingeren die alteren beniitzen.' ' See Ch. 2 n. 13. 4 'Die iibrigen [i. e. non-African] Handschriften werden als "europaisch" bezeichnet, was nichts bedeutet, daB sie eine geschloBene Gruppe bilden.' 0 See further the discussion of k in Ch. 2. 6 There may also have existed a sort of European Uruberset-^ung which was completely independent of the African tradition. However, as all extant manuscripts show some degree of African influence, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of such a version.

Origins—The Synoptic Gospels

31

3.2 Methods of Enquiry It is clear, then, that the question of the origins of the Old Latin Gospels are not fully understood. As a contribution to the understanding of them, I propose three methods by which they may be examined: 1. by considering variations in the rendering of certain Greek terms within each Gospel; 2. by considering variations in the rendering of certain Greek terms between the Gospels; 3. by considering instances where all the Latin texts agree upon a reading that is found in few or none of the extant Greek texts. None of these methods is wholly original. The first method was employed with some success by the editors of the Oxford Old-Latin series, though only to assess the textual relations of individual manuscripts. The value and limitations of this method are judiciously treated by Fischer (1972: yff.). Vogels (1928^) also discusses it, but overestimates the degree of uniformity one might reasonably expect of a translator, and is too ready to regard any departure from a manuscript's usual rendering as evidence of overlay from another tradition. In practice, anyone who has translated a text of any length will know that one can easily slip between several synonyms, even when one is not trying to introduce variation (or indeed, when one is trying consciously to avoid it) and when there is nothing in the context to suggest one rendering rather than the other. Even the use of written glossaries will not in itself prevent this, as glossators often give more than one gloss in the second language. The success of this approach rests on precisely these two factors: the general presupposition on the part of the translators that each Greek word should, ceteris paribus, have one Latin equivalent, and the fact that this is not a rigidly-enforced policy. The second method was used to good effect in some surprisingly neglected articles by Eberhard Nestle (1907) and F. C. Burkitt (1908). Examples of the third type have been pointed out by various scholars, if only in passing. It is worthwhile, therefore, to bring these methods together to bear on the problem.

32

Textual History of the Old I^atin Gospels 3.3 Variations within Gospels

The variations in rendering of Greek terms may conveniently be set out in tabular form, with the columns representing the individual manuscripts and the rows representing the references where the Greek term may be found. An arable numeral is ascribed to each of the renderings found; this is merely an arbitrary symbol and has no numerical value. There are four basic patterns the tables could take, depending on the level of agreement between the rows or columns. Each of the four patterns should be interpreted in a different way. 1. In Type i tables, all manuscripts have the same rendering throughout. There is thus complete consistency within both columns and rows. Such data are inconclusive; unless the rendering is particularly unlikely, it is impossible to tell whether the translations are related to each other, or are using the same rendering independently. 2. In Type 2 tables, each manuscript alternates between different renderings without regard either for context or for the treatment of the same word in other manuscripts. There is thus no consistency of rendering either within columns or within rows. This is the extreme situation one might expect to emerge if the translations were basically independent and unrelated. Although this sort of diversity is sometimes found for renderings of the more uncommon Greek words which have no obvious translation, it is not found for the more common Greek words. 3. In Type 3 tables, there is broad agreement between most manuscripts as to the most appropriate translation, but there are places at which they depart from it en masse. There is thus general consistency between columns, but there are also rows at which the rendering changes across a wide range of manuscripts. This alternation may be determined by the context in which the word occurs, or it may be that the underlying Greek text is uncertain; in either of these cases no conclusions may be drawn about the textual relationships. 7 7

The fact that the translators are willing to alter their rendering to suit the context, and the extent to which they do so, is a significant aspect of their translation technique; see Ch. 6. But while this possibility must always be considered, it "would be merely unsound to distinguish infinite niceties of meaning to account ad hoc for every variation of rendering. On the conditions under which it is acceptable to posit an unattested variant reading in the underlying Greek see Ch. i.

Origins—The Synoptic Gospels

33

However, at a significant number of points there is a unanimous or near-unanimous change of rendering which cannot be determined by the context. Such unconditioned changes suggest a relationship between all the manuscripts which share them. 4. In Type 4 tables, there is broad agreement between most manuscripts as to the most appropriate translation, but there is at least one manuscript which regularly chooses another translation. There is thus broad consistency within columns, but not between them. Manuscripts which share a particular rendering may be specially related to each other. It is on the basis of patterns of this sort that the difference between the 'African' and 'European' traditions was established. The same pattern also marks out the 'mixed texts' from the 'unmixed' Old Latin (the former often introducing Vulgate-type readings). In the following discussions I hope to point to the existence of a distinctive subgroup within the European tradition of Luke, and to the existence of two separate European translations of John. These four types are to some extent ideals; a manuscript can be regarded as broadly consistently even if it is not entirely so. And in practice, they are not all mutually exclusive. While a table cannot belong at once to Type 2 and any other type, it may partake of both Types 3 and 4. It is these two types that are of greatest interest for us, as they have the potential to be diagnostic both of primal unity across a range of manuscripts, and of subgroupings within that range. Where there is a striking variation in rendering across a range of manuscripts that cannot convincingly be explained either as deriving from a variant Greek reading or as conditioned by the context, the question arises of how this variation arose. Here there are three main possibilities: First, it may be that the passage in which the variation occurred was a particularly well-known one, which was widely circulated either in a lectionary or harmony or in a liturgical form. In such a case it is conceivable that a number of translators working independently and in separate places could have adopted the familiar wording into their versions. This theory is not intrinsically implausible, and is more likely to be true of the Gospels than of any other part of the Scriptures; it may also be attractive to those who presuppose that the extant OLG traditions reflect the work of local translators. However, it also presents problems. A large number of the variations in translation occur in passages which would not necessarily have been especially

34

Textual History of the Old iMtin Gospels

familiar. Even in some of the better-known passages, it is highly unlikely that all the translators would have felt constrained to adopt the (putative) liturgical or harmonistic rendering. Moreover, it fails to consider the numerous counter-examples of well-known passages which exhibit considerable and even massive variation of rendering. I conclude that while there are specific instances in which an overlay from a liturgical tradition cannot be ruled out, it is unsatisfactory as a general explanation. Secondly, the manuscripts which show this variation may all derive ultimately from a single common source which showed the same variation. This is the theory that will be advanced for the Synoptic Gospels. It does not preclude the possibility that this common source itself incorporated material from more than one tradition, perhaps from lectionaries or liturgical translations. This possibility should not be exaggerated, and (as Fischer 1972: n notes) it is certainly mistaken to assume that every variation in rendering must stem from a different underlying source. None the less, it will be argued that the Matthaean Passion narrative contains various peculiarities of translation that may derive from a liturgical text incorporated within the common source. Thirdly, a rendering originally confined to one tradition may have spread across the entire range of traditions.8 But while this explanation is always possible in theory, in practice it need not detain us long. Examples of 'contamination' may be found in several of the OLG; most notably, in cases where a manuscript has combined a European and an African rendering to produce a double-translation (Doppeliiberset^ung, see Chapter 2, n. i), or in the case of the mixed Old Latin/ Vulgate texts. But in the examples that follow there will be many instances where all the manuscripts depart from their normal rendering, for no apparent reason. In such circumstances it is more economical to assume that this rendering occurred in a single source underlying all the manuscripts than that it originated in one translation and somehow insinuated itself into all the other traditions, which (according to this theory) are otherwise unrelated. The single-common-source explanation is not without its own difficulties. It is based on the fact that there are some striking points 8 The term 'contamination' is not wholiy appropriate here, as it seems to imply a corrupt reading displacing the correct one, and since there was no one 'authorized' Old Latin version, such a displacement cannot strictly be a corruption. None the less, the term mav be used for the sake of convenience.

Origins—The Synoptic Gospels

35

of agreement between the extant manuscripts; but of course there are also many points of divergence among them. The argument offered here does not disregard these difficulties, but rests on the supposition that while the points of divergence may plausibly be the result of separate local revisions of a single basic tradition, it is unlikely that the points of similarity between them could have arisen independently. The work of scholars such as the Oxford editors and Heinrich Vogels in tracing the pedigree of individual manuscripts is not discounted; but they were not concerned with the question of the origins of the OLG as a whole. Of course, there were later developments within this tradition, through which the groupings discussed in the previous chapter were identified;9 there was also much cross-fertilization between these groupings. But the focus in this chapter will be on the material that they share in common. The work of Vogels and the Oxford editors is often described as the uncovering of various strata within the various manuscripts; to pursue the archaeological metaphor, the study offered here attempts to provide an aerial photograph of all the manuscripts, in the belief that new patterns may be discerned which cannot be seen in an investigation of any one text.10 Before moving on to consider specific examples, two points should be noted. First, the nature of the argument advanced here is cumulative. Not all the examples offered are equally cogent, but the argument stands or falls by no one of them but by their collective force. No doubt other explanations could account for individual data as well as the common-source theory proposed here; but the commonsource hypothesis has been preferred as being the most economical Viwy to account for the maximum amount of data considered here. Secondly, these studies are not intended to be exhaustive and their results are not final. Within present limits it is possible only to point to certain 9

Sabatier (1743, Praefatio) envisages the Latin Bible being re-copied by various scribes 'qui pro arbitratu suo addiderint, detraxerint, mutaverint, emendaverint'. Doubtless also there were independent local versions which may have contributed to these copies, but as no such wholly independent version survives their contribution cannot be assessed. 10 The words of Gribomont (1991: 200) are very pertinent here: 'Every extant manuscript merits an individual study. Nevertheless, the relations which connect the thousands of successive waves in which the process of editing occurred also demand a comparative study to illuminate those elements which are distinctive and those which are communal in each witness. The usual procedure of the critical editions in which a normative text is established from which the variants depend is no longer sufficient. . . It is possible to reach only certain statistics, which are open to exceptions.'

36

Textual History of the Old I^tin Gospels

phenomena which have escaped previous notice, and to propose some working hypotheses to account for them; the conclusions reached are of course provisional. In the following tables obvious copyists' errors are 'corrected' without comment, such as /fe's illic erit oratio et stridor dentium for plomtio (Matthew 8: 12). An asterisk denotes a deficiency in the manuscript in question, or that there is strong reason to believe it is following a variant reading. Unattested variants are posited only under the conditions set out in Chapter i (Section 1.3). Where a range of manuscripts follows an unusual variant reading, this may indicate a common ancestry; in such cases the question is generally considered in the following discussion.

3.4 Matthew Table 3.1 gives the Latin renderings of the Greek TO ficos in Matthew. It is clear that the usual African translation is lumen, shared also by d, while the usual European translation is lux. The shift to lumen in all the European traditions at Matthew 6: 23 and 10: 27 needs to be explained. At Matthew 6: 23 the change may be suggested by the context. Typically the passage runs: lucerna carports tui oculus tuus . . . si ergo lumen quod in te est tenebme sunt, ipsae tenebme quantae sunt. Here lumen is arguably the better rendering, since it is the term that refers specifically both to lamplight and (at least in classical poetry7) to the eyes. However, it is harder to motivate the shift to lumen at Matthew 10: 27, where all manuscripts have quod dico vobis in tenebris dicite in lumine. Here lux would TABLE 3.1. Translations of TO ws in Matthew: i = lumen, 2 = lux, * = lacuna or probable variant reading Ref.

4: 1 6 4: 1 6 5: 14 5: 16 6:23 10: 27 17: 2